Beaumont, California Woman Blinded for 'Contempt of Cop'

On February 21, Clark conducted a traffic stop involving Hernandez, who was suspected of drunk driving. When Clark attempted to handcuff her, Hernandez resisted. The officer responded by using a JPX device -- a weapon that uses a gunpowder charge to fire a stream of pepper spray at roughly 400 miles an hour.
The JPX weapon is designed for use at a distance of 6 to 15 feet, and training presentations depict it being deployed against aggressive, armed assailants. Promotional literature for the JPX weapon -- which isn't categorized as a firearm, because it doesn't fire a projectile -- boasts of "devastating stopping power." The payload of weaponized OC spray is propelled over the prescribed distance at less than three one-hundredths of a second, making it "too fast to avoid.... The effect is immediate; there is no chance to resist."

Clark's attorney insists that the officer's attack was justified in order "to gain compliance and in defense of his person." The JPX is designed to incapacitate an aggressor at a distance. Clark -- who was armed and wearing body armor -- fired it into Hernandez's temple from a distance of roughly ten inches, blowing apart her right eye and leaving the left with severe, irreparable damage.

Anyone who had undergone rudimentary training with the JPX would understand that the weapon should not be fired directly into the head or face of a non-violent suspect. Clark's actions suggest that his intention was not to gain "compliance," but rather to inflict summary street punishment for "contempt of cop."

Hernandez was taken to the hospital and never charged. Following an investigation by the Riverside County Sherriff's office, a grand jury indicted Clark on four felony charges: Assault under color of authority, assault with a less lethal weapon, use of force causing severe bodily injury, and assault with force likely to cause severe bodily injury. Free on $50,000 bail, Clark faces up to 20 years in prison. At present, the officer -- who is chairman of the local police union -- was placed on administrative leave, which is to say that he was given a paid vacation.

Interestingly, the law firm representing Clark in his criminal trial is involving in a union lawsuit against Beaumont Police Chief Frank Coe, claiming that the chief retaliated against critics on in the department by denying them promotions, thereby leaving several positions vacant.

Tragically, the blinding of Monique Hernandez arose out of a domestic disturbance that led to a 911 call. Two officers responded to the call, one of whom reportedly witnessed the assault while speaking with Hernandez's family.

It should be remembered that any time someone calls for police "assistance," he's inviting the intervention of people who consider themselves licensed to inflict potentially lethal violence as punishment for non-compliance. It should be assumed that if the police get involved, somebody is going to be needlessly injured or killed.
_
William Norman Grigg [send him mail] publishes the Pro Libertate blog and hosts the Pro Libertate radio program.

"It should be remembered that any time someone calls for police "assistance," he's inviting the intervention of people who consider themselves licensed to inflict potentially lethal violence as punishment for non-compliance. It should be assumed that if the police get involved, somebody is going to be needlessly injured or killed."

COPs are not your friends. They are the agents of immoral and unlawful violence. They have been brainwashed by the system to believe anything they do is OK because "they are COPs".

Equal protection under the law means that when some SOB COP blinds you, he has to pay. I would suggest a civil suite and make sure they never forget it.

@seriously

DEADLY seriously!

Sheople much?

@ sensationalist journalism

Brainwashed much? Holy shit (wo)man! Every read the news? This is happening over and over and over and OVER everywhere! It is not an isolated event.

...and yes, all cops are bad because even the ones that don't do the bad stuff will protect the ones that do.

Blinding another human, so you can continue to collect your bits of colored paper at the end of the week.
...
The recruiting office needs to add an extra line to their Recruiting Pamphlets.
"Note: Only Mentally Ill applicants will be considered"

And then they give these fucking inhuman nazi pigs state funerals like they were princess fucking Diana, for rightfully and deservedly getting shot. IMO it doesn't happen enough. Fucking vile thug jack boot shit. Waste of money. Any time some pig calls asking for money for the leech women and kids of "fallen" officers I say hell no.

She may or may have not been in the wrong. However it does not give that piece of Bacon the right to blind her, then again its beaumont pd, last year at the free summer concert my party and I were watching the show and some old hag assaulted my friend, and when we took it to this one particular male cop he let us know that its ok to assault ppl in beaumont. I said ok so if I go assault her what would happen to me? He was a Dick, I have respect for authority but not him he was wrong he wanted to avoid his oath of serving and protecting, I'm gonna find out which officer and when I do I'll post it. We need to know who we can run to for help.

Cops do whatever the fuck they want to do. You have to realize that whenever a cop arrives at a call, he calls the shots, not you, not the person who called, not the aggressor, and anything goes. So, basically you roll the dice even if you call, the cop can turn everything around and of course, there's always the chance you BOTH go to jail. Something to think about before you call el porko next time.

And it is also assumed the cop has enough common sense to take the course on how to fire one of these things BEFORE using it! This is based on the El Copo book of dumb shit heads, but its fairly obvious he didn't really give a fuck who he hurt, hope the rest of the fascist badge wielding pigs learns something from this!

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the DMCA and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.